ariad, rochester

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Liu et al 12598138 - (D) PAULRAJ 103/double patenting OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, ROBINSON, LISBETH C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Scarsbrook et al 11743680 - (D) GUPTA 112(1)/112(2)/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP MCCRACKEN, DANIEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Pham et al 13026369 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 Blank Rome LLP Brocade KAMARA, MOHAMED A

2458 Ex Parte Fernandez Alonso et al 13461227 - (D) HAGY 103 ERICSSON INC RECEK, JASON D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Jiao et al 12645916 - (D) HAAPALA 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH MOE, AUNG SOE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Smith et al 13107560 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP GOOGLE MIKELS, MATTHEW

2898 Ex Parte Flachowsky et al 13345922 - (D) OWENS 102/103 Amerson Law Firm, PLLC GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. HOSSAIN, MOAZZAM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Chee et al 12201073 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P,C SWARTZ, STEPHENS

3686 Ex Parte Demeester et al 12740358 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PATEL, NEHA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Lancaster et al 13011252 - (D) BROWNE 102 MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3748 Ex Parte Newman 12870202 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL HARRIS, WESLEY G

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte SIMPSON et al 12273823 - (D) ROSS 112(1)/103 double patenting Fox Rothschild LLP I UTB HUANG, CHENG YUAN

"[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to 'ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification."' Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2173.05(g) ,   2181

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2163

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2446 Ex Parte Barton et al 13448741 - (D) MOORE 103 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise LIN, JSING FORNG

2479 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 13056644 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 102 HP Inc, KADING, JOSHUA A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Chen et al 13175743 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 103 Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP BOVEJA, NAMRATA

3733 Ex Parte Kostuik et al 14207740 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 102/103 41.50 102/103 CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA

3752 Ex Parte Belongia 12837948 - (D) CALVE 102/112(2) 112(2) 41.50 112(2) S,C JOHNSON & SON, INC KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Figuly 13546594 - (D) SAWERT 112(1) 103 41.50 103 E I DUPONT DENEMOURS AND COMPANY KASSA, JESSICA M

1643 Ex Parte Gevas et al 13012433 - (D) LaVIER 103/double patenting Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. SANG, HONG

1657 Ex Parte Kleiber et al 13269195 - (D) SMITH 103/double patenting Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, HUMPHREY, LOUISE WANG ZHIYING

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Tanno et al 13585510 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD ROGERS, MARTIN K

1747 Ex Parte Tanno et al 12447648 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD ROGERS, MARTIN K

1756 Ex Parte Buckley et al 12935663 - (D) SQUIRE 103 ALBEMARLE CORPORATION WANGA, TIMON

1771 Ex Parte Mayeur et al 12373158 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(1) 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BOYER, RANDY

1783 Ex Parte Kienzle et al 11786277 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP MILLER, DANIEL H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Venkatesh et al 13241941 - (D) CURCURI 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH KHAN, IFTEKHAR A

2142 Ex Parte Wine 13462015 - (D) BAIN 102/103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC NICHOLS, JENNIFER ELIZABETH-JO

2179 Ex Parte Maxwell 13109961 - (D) JEFFERY 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (APPLE) DUCKWORTH, JIANMEI F

2193 Ex Parte Ghosh et al 12838061 - (D) SMITH 103/double patenting BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LOUIE, JUE WANG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Sugahara 12188780 - (D) DANG 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP NGUYEN, AN V

2436 Ex Parte Haselsteiner 13120849 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 102/103 NXP B.V. LE, KHOI V

2444 Ex Parte Clark et al 11993794 - (D) YAP 103 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP BENGZON, GREG C

2456 Ex Parte Gisby 12817349 - (D) BEAMER 103 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L, NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

2483 Ex Parte Laksono et al 13076536 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) REN, ZHUBING

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Keinrath et al 13206409 - (D) ENGLE 103 HONEYWELL/IPL LAU, KEVIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Takashima 12685069 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 102 PATTERSON Intellectual Property Law, P.C. LI, MEIYA

2829 Ex Parte Ko et al 12232019 - (D) HAAPALA 103 JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE GUPTA, RAJ R

2881 Ex Parte Ikegami et al 13254136 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) CHUNG, KEVIN T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte McIntyre et al 12975200 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1)/103 112(2) KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

ariad, curtis

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Sun et al 11759080 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC HEARD, THOMAS SWEENEY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Murdock 12059098 - (D) THOMAS 103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP MITIKU, BERHANU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Murakawa 11636287 - (D) KIM 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC JASMIN, LYNDA C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Runstedler et al 12395083 - (D) STRAUSS 112(1) 102/103 41.50 112(1) BlackBerry Limited (Fitch Even) SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Under § 112, first paragraph, claims must find sufficient support in the written description, such that the disclosure "reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharma, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Whether written description adequately supports claims is an issue of fact. See In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,  2173.05(g) ,  2181

Curtis, In re, 354 F.3d 1347, 69 USPQ2d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2163 , 2163.05

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Hingston et al 12860304 - (D) MILLS 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE

1613 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10850121 - (D) MILLS 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Boorse et al 12765441 - (D) GARRIS 102/103/double patenting Servilla Whitney LLC/ENG SLIFKA, SARAH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Kohno et al 12609187 - (D) KUMAR 103 Yee & Associates, P.C. MILLS, PAUL V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Hinton et al 11740956 - (D) DILLON 103 DAVID H. JUDSON IBM CORP. (DHJ) HOLDER, BRADLEY W

2467 Ex Parte KIM et al 12663967 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Tsui et al 12267396 - (D) KAISER 103 K&L Gates LLP-Orange County HUANG, DAVID S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte DOHMEN 13090718 - (D) HILL 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP ARCE, MARLON ALEXANDER

3649 Ex Parte Zhao et al 12082616 - (D) COURTENAY 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. WONG, ALBERT KANG

3692 Ex Parte Falkenstein 12482178 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. JOHNSON, GREGORY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Frigg et al 12090920 - (D) HOELTER 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COLEY, ZADE JAMES

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Balchandran et al 11764291 - (D) HUDALLA 103 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC COLUCCI, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Sun et al 11358358 - (D) HUDALLA 103 103 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

eli lilly2, ariad, hearing, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2458 Ex Parte Davis et al 12524500 - (D) THOMAS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP RECEK, JASON D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Bouhamame et al 12678507 - (D) DELMENDO 102 NXP B.V. LE, DINH THANH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Whynot 12341845 - (D) SHAW 103 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. OWYANG, MICHELLE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lukose et al 12263176 - (D) MOHANTY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Lingappa et al 10911421 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) 112(1)/double patenting QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

“The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ...

This is particularly relevant when, as here, Appellants’ Specification discloses that one has to experiment to determine if a conformer for any particular protein could, in fact, be produced, let alone be distinguishably identified by a ligand (see FF 13). Notwithstanding Appellants’ contentions to the contrary:

[A] sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus[, as Appellants have done on this record,] is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species” (id.). ...

“The written description requirement [serves to] . . . ensure[] that when a patent claims a genus by its
function or result, the specification recites sufficient materials to accomplish that function.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. In this regard, the written description requirement requires “more than a ‘wish’ or ‘plan’ for obtaining” the claimed invention. Id. at 1350.

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) , 2111.03, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161.01

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Granit et al 12279952 - (D) TROCK 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP HASSAN, AURANGZEB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Hird 12272205 - (D) HOMERE 103 Vierra Magen / CA Inc ZAIDI, SYED A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Rak et al 11738981 - (D) HAAPALA 103 BlackBerry Limited (Fitch Even) CRAWLEY, KEITH L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte PUPPI et al 12971606 - (D) GUIJT 103 112(2) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Pirelli & C. S.p.A. VENNE, DANIEL V

As claimed, the suffix “like” acts as a term of degree because it is intended to encompass structures that may differ to some degree from threads. Our reviewing court has held that “[n]ot all terms of degree are indefinite,” but that “‘the specification must provide[] some standard for measuring that degree.’” Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

We find the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants fail to provide the requisite standard for measuring whether a structure is “thread-like.”

3671 Ex Parte Oberg 13151792 - (D) GEIER 103 NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A. TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Drack et al 12893728 - (D) MAYBERRY 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PRAGER, JESSE M

3788 Ex Parte Sloan 12227610 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SKINNER AND ASSOCIATES NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Requester, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent v. MICROSOFT CORP. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant Ex Parte 6339780 et al 08/851,877 95002267 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HAYNES & BOONE LLP FOR PATENT OWNER:  KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP original Lee & Hayes, PLLC KISS, ERIC B original JUNG, DAVID YIUK

gordon, ariad, abbvie, rochester

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte LU et al 12103730 - (D) ZADO 102/103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hinton 11010228 - (D) KOHUT 102 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON AVERY, JEREMIAH L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Houston et al 13116973 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHENG, DIANA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Cloft 11823496 - (D) KINDER 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. KIM, CRAIG SANG

Examining the entirety of each of the prior art references to determine whether it would have been obvious to combine Olsen’s electrically driven oil system into Champion, we conclude it would not because doing so would render Champion unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2143.01 , 2144.08

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Moskowitz 11895388 - (D) DEJMEK 103 103 NEIFELD IP LAW, PC OKEKE, IZUNNA

2491 Ex Parte Viamonte Sole 12144201 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 102/103 RATNERPRESTIA DESROSIERS, EVANS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Chen et al 12170319 - (D) LENTIVECH 102 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED BILODEAU, DAVID

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Freeman 13168621 - (D) PLENZLER 103 102 SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH ANDREWS, DAVID L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Subkowski et al 11922650 - (D) PER CURIUM 112(1)/112(2)/102 112(1) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) HA, JULIE

A “generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, “the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181

AbbVie Duetschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014)  2163 ,   2163.01 ,   2163.05

The Federal Circuit confronted facts similar to those here in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In that case, the patent claimed a method of selectively inhibiting the enzyme PGHS-2 (also known as COX-2) by “administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product in a human.” Id. at 918. The patent “described in detail how to make cells that express either COX-1 or COX-2, but not both …, as well as ‘assays for screening compounds, including peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product.[’]” Id. at 927.

The court held that the disclosure of screening assays and general classes of compounds was not adequate to describe compounds having the desired activity: without disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, or small organic molecules have the desired characteristic, the claims failed to meet the description requirement of § 112. See id. (“As pointed out by the district court, the ‘850 patent does not disclose just ‘which “peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules” have the desired characteristic of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2.’ … Without such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2163

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte CHAUDHRY 12430761 - (D) McKEOWN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PARK, GRACE A

2167 Ex Parte Wong et al 10888772 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Baker Botts LLP KHAKHAR, NIRAV K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Baylon 11562517 - (D) DANG 103 ARRIS Group, Inc. TORRENTE, RICHARD T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Haynes et al 12140570 - (D) SHAW 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG PAPPAS, PETER

reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, edwards, lukach, ariad

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 11834817 - (D) MORGAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte VOLLM et al 11740573 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Chang et al 12072578 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/102 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. MAIER, LEIGH C

The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To that end, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations” (emphasis in original). Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not necessary for the specification to describe the claimed invention ipsissimis verbis; all that is required is that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978).

When an Applicant claims a class, the Applicant “must describe that class in order to meet the description requirement of the statute.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968 (CCPA 1971). “[W]hile the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure …, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1349. “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” Id.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20 ,   2152.02(b) ,   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,  2164 ,  2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) , 2163 , 2163.02

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  608.01(p) ,   715.03 ,   2131.02 ,   2136.05 ,   2163.02 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.05

Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) 2138.05

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) 211.05 , 2152.02(b) , 2163 , 2163.05

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201090 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Pomeranz 12175302 - (D) KAISER 103 BAE SYSTEMS CARTER, MICHAEL W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7274926 et al 10/089,623 95001210 - (D) CHEN 103/314(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Third Party Requester: PERKINS COIE LLP original Kenyon & Kenyon LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original CHAN, RICHARD

Q.I. Press, Ariad

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Singh et al 11554842 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Lappe 10579278 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/112(2) 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. HINZE, LEO T

The test for written description is that it "must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed." [Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citation and quotations omitted).] The disclosure must "convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." [Id.]

Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee, - F.3d -, 2014 WL 2565995, *6 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Berger 10052961 - (D) GRIMES 103 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP WANG, SHENGJUN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Brooker et al 12888629 - (D) KIMLIN 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1792 Ex Parte Mehansho 12533047 - (D) KRATZ 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZILBERING, ASSAF

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Do et al 11922720 - (D) EVANS 102/103 ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS

2199 Ex Parte OBRIEN et al 11339592 - (D) WEINSCHENK 101/102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Boyce et al 11579204 - (D) HOFF 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte SINDT et al 12258610 - (D) BROWNE 103 SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD SERVICES MICHENER, BLAKE E

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2812 Ex parte EIDOS Display, LLC Appellant Ex Parte 5879958 et al 08/745,933 90011739 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WILCZEWSKI, MARY A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 FEI COMPANY Requester v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Patent Owner Ex Parte 7262411 et al 11/295,148 95001313 - (D) SIU 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD Third Party Requester: Michael O. Scheinberg MENEFEE, JAMES A original NGUYEN, KIET TUAN